John MacArthur’s Judgement of Ravi Zacharias
It is alleged that Ravi Zacharias committed egregious sexual sins. We live in an age where such accusations against prominent people carry weight. Ravi’s ministry is behaving as though the charges are an accepted fact and are worse than reported. (I have not attempted to evaluate or even review the charges.) The ministry has evicted Ravi’s wife from their home. A home promised to her by them for as long as she had the need. The ministry is in the process of cancelling (to use todays current fad word) Ravi. They have withdrawn all his media. His publisher has stopped printing his books, etc. Ravi’s legacy has been ruined.
His son and his wife have made efforts to defend Ravi. (I have not read that defense in detail). I do not know if any litigation exists stemming from Ravi’s alleged misconduct. I assume we will have a clearer picture if litigation does occur. Accusations are easily thrown against a public figure like Ravi but sworn testimony in court is another matter.
Ravi has been a strong, effective apologist for the Christian faith. He had the logic of a Dr. William Lane Craig and the passion of a Billy Graham. He was a fearless speaker going before audiences all over the world. Those audiences represented all the world’s religions and atheists. He spoke out of his own faith and belief that Jesus was God’s Son and the only means of salvation was through Him. Ravi’s testimony was one of being saved through Christ. He left no doubt about this to any who would listen to him or read his writings. Ravi was a Christian.
With this as background, John MacArthur steps into the pulpit and declares that Ravi is now in hell. He was not saved. His alleged grievous sexual sins could not have been the act of a Spirit filled, Christ saved, God elected man. In MacArthur’s five-point Calvinism the elect must demonstrate by righteous works their election. We can only know if a person is saved by their good works. There is then some dividing line between the good works one does and the sinful works one does that says you are saved or not. John MacArthur has weighed the good and the bad of Ravi’s life and made a pronouncement, a judgment that Ravi missed the mark and was not among God’s Elect.
What hubris! Hubris can be thought of as excessive overconfidence. John MacArthur has the hubris to pass judgment on a man whose life and testimony glorified God at every turn. He makes a judgment based on yet to be proven allegations. He makes his judgment based on a theology that forces him to make that judgment. He comes to his conclusion because his theology is one of works righteousness.
I am tempted to rehash why Calvinism and its works righteousness is not Biblical. I have written enough about that elsewhere in this blog. The point I am making is that our theology has consequences. It impacts our view of ourselves and our lives. Calvinism presents us with a dilemma. How do we know we are saved under Calvinism? The answer is that we can’t know. A Calvinist can never know if he is among the elect.
With that in mind the Calvinist says the Elect must show their election in their living, in their doing good works else they are not saved. But where do we draw the line? When do the scales shift from being damned to being saved? John MacArthur seems to know where to draw that line. He has drawn that line for Ravi. Could he do that for each of us who profess Jesus as Lord? Are we in a position to draw that line for ourselves? Is my life about keeping the scales balanced on the good side and away from the bad? Do I need to live my life worrying about my salvation?
The answer is a resounding NO. Romans 10: 9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. 11 For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
“Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” Paul establishes no requirement for doing good works and avoiding bad works in order to be saved. None. Our salvation rests on Christ alone and all He accomplished on the cross. Those who are in Christ have been made new, their sins forgiven at the Cross. In Christ we stand before the throne of God clothed in Christ’s righteousness. We have nothing to offer to God. No good work on our part could come close to satisfying God’s just condemnation of our sin.
No matter what Ravi’s sins, he stands before God with no shame. His Savior has made him clean. If this is not so for Ravi, then it is not so for any of us and if that is true Christ’s work on the Cross was an empty gesture, a meaningless act. You see John MacArthur’s judgment of Ravi robs the Cross of its power to save and places that salvation back into our own hands. True trust in Christ recognizes that we cannot by our own works save ourselves. Only God can save us.
Romans 13:1,7 There is no Authority Except By God
Romans 13:1,7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation because it is God’s servant for your well-being. But be afraid if you do wrong because government does not bear the sword for nothing. It is God’s servant to administer punishment on the person who does wrong. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Governments are put in place by God to be servants for our wellbeing. Paul has in mind the positive aspects of governance. There is no power greater than God, so no human institution exists that can match or exceed that power. Those who govern are there because God has appointed them to that position. We are to be subordinate to those institutions. We are to come under their rule. There is an order to governance. The husband is head of the home. The Mayor is head of a town. We are subordinate to our bosses at work.
There are consequences to our refusing to subordinate ourselves. Those who govern have the power to reward and to punish. There is also a spiritual aspect to our being subordinate and that is an obedience to God. Our not being subject to those who govern means that we are not being subject to the authorities God has put in place. If we go against the powers above us our consciences may well condemn us because we may be acting against God’s purposes.
Paul warns us that if we are to be at peace with our consciences and with those who govern us, we should subordinate ourselves. Pay your taxes and be good citizens and you will have nothing to fear from the government or from God.
This is good advice we can all agree with and for the most part we live our lives being subordinate to a wide variety of rule makers and enforcers. The world works better that way.
The Greek word “subordinate”, or “subject” is hupotassesthō Root: ὑποτάσσω. 1) to arrange under, to subordinate 2) to subject, put in subjection 3) to subject one’s self, obey 4) to submit to one’s control 5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice 6) to obey, be subject ++++ A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
There is an element of obedience involved in subjecting ourselves to the rule of authorities above us, but far more it is “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.” It is like getting with the program in order to accomplish the tasks at hand. It is important to note that Paul does not use the word for obedience anywhere in this passage. He does not have unquestioned obedience to authority in mind. As important, there is no mention of being subject to an evil government. Remember, God is above all authority on earth and it is God we obey first and foremost. “We must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29). Douglas Moo observes that “submission” is not the same as “universal obedience.” [Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (p. 809). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.]
There are places in Scripture where God praises those who take a stand against those in authority.
Exodus 1. The Israelites had lived in Egypt under the rule of the Pharaohs for several centuries. They became very numerous, so the king of Egypt commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill all the boy babies born to the Israelites (v. 16). But verse 17 says, “The midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live.” And verse 20 adds, “So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and grew strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.”
Daniel. King Nebuchadnezzar made a royal decree that all who heard his music must fall down and worship the golden image of his god. But Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to obey the edict (3:16–18). So they were thrown into the fiery furnace, and God miraculously saved them and thus put his stamp of approval on their civil disobedience.
Sixth chapter of Daniel. Darius the king establishes an edict that for thirty days no one can make a petition to any god or man other than Darius himself (6:7). Daniel was one of Darius’ three chief presidents (6:2), but verse 10 says, “When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.” The result was that he was thrown to the lions. But again, God shows his approval of Daniel’s disobedience by saving him from the lion’s mouth.
The New Testament. When Peter and John were arrested by the Jewish authorities and commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus, they answered in Acts 4:19, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” So they went on teaching in public and were arrested again. The high priest said to them in Acts 5:28, “‘We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.”
Pilate and Herod give Jesus an order to speak, Christ resists their orders and remains silent (Matthew 27:13, Luke 23:7).
When Paul has been beaten illegally by evil men within the Roman government, he refuses their command to come out of the jail and defiantly says “…let them come themselves and fetch us out.” (Acts 16:37).
Peter is assisted in a jailbreak by an angel. (Acts 12:7) Whom were they resisting? The Evil Authority.
In Damascus, the Jews that had authority under the governmental edict establishing their position (John 11:48) sought to murder Saul (Acts 9:23). Saul escaped over the wall as he left Damascus.
In Revelation, the true saints of God that oppose the Antichrist “overcame him by the blood of the lamb….” (Revelation 12:11). Antichrist heads the world government that is already in power. (Revelation 13:1).
It is clearly not appropriate to say that the Bible teaches that since all governing authority is from God, it must, therefore, be unquestioningly obeyed. Paul says that “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct . . . Do good, and you will receive their praise.” This verse and the next one must be a general statement of how governments should and often do function. Paul simply does not have in view the problem of evil governments. Instead he has in view a government in which doing good deeds will generally find approval and doing evil will generally be punished.
Paul begins by advising that all souls should be subject to higher powers. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” This admonition includes both earthly and spiritual rulers. Elsewhere Paul says that our struggle is against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12) Paul would never advocate for our obedience to Satan, or to evil higher powers whether they are spiritual or earthly beings. To argue that Paul in our passage expects us to be obedient to evil governments goes well beyond the passage and, as shown above, is inconsistent with other New Testament writings.
It is unthinkable that God’s word would demand that we cooperate with a government’s evil demands. The holocaust comes too quickly to mind. The government enabling the killing of the unborn, or defunding the police, or supporting anarchy in the streets are examples. The Supreme Court infringing on the right of Churches to assemble or restricting our right to pursue happiness through normal commerce add to the list. Evil governance is at a fever pitch today. Our primary obligation is obedience to God and that may demand a bold resistance to those in authority. Our Christian conscience demands that we approach our resistance prayerfully and rightly. We are not anarchist. We are not flame throwers. We still can vote in this country. If we Christians do not stand against the evil that surrounds us, then who will?
Notes:
- See one church’s stand against governmental overreach here. (The page loads slowly.)
- I have “borrowed” heavily from the work of others on the internet for this writing. My apologies for not providing citations.
- Edited the title to better reflect the content.
The Lord’s Prayer: Unless you Forgive, God will not Forgive you
From time to time someone will exposit Scripture in a way that challenges our doctrine, or our tradition. Dr. Farley makes the case that we should not be praying the Lord’s Prayer. Please give his talk a listen before reading further. It will provide context for the points I want to highlight.
The first Century church received teaching directing the Lord’s Prayer be prayed three times a day. For centuries the Lord’s Prayer has been prayed countless times every day. It is an unquestioned tradition. I believe that long standing tradition has muddled our understanding of New Covenant principles, most especially our understanding of God’s forgiveness. In addition, the prayer looks forward to things that were soon fulfilled.
Let’s begin with a very basic New Covenant principle.
Colossians 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
Our standing before God no longer rests on our law keeping. The regulations have been taken away and they no longer condemn us. God has forgiven us all our sins. Those sins were forgiven at the Cross long before we ever committed them. No sin was left out. All the sins of our entire life are forgiven. Not just our past sins, but all sins, past, present, and future. All of them. Every one of them. ALL. Jesus died to take away the sins of the whole world. We appropriate that good news when we receive Christ as our Savior and Lord. We died to the law and it no longer has power over us. It can no longer hold us accountable for the wrongs we commit. God has freed us from that system of judgement.
The Cross is a turning point from external law keeping to an indwelling of Christ in those who put their faith in Him. We are alive with Christ. Our walk is by the Spirit not by law keeping. We stand before God with a righteousness that is not our own, it is Christ’s. The is a made clear in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.
The blood sacrifice on the Cross established the New Covenant. God has made His people perfect. We are complete in Christ. This is a onetime event with continuing effect. We are as complete in Christ as we will ever be. Faith in Jesus establishes us in a Covenant process that is making us holy. We have been made perfect and we are being made holy. That is God’s promise to us, and He is accomplishing it.
Hebrews 10:12-14 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
What does our forgiving others look like under the New Covenant where all our sins are forgiven? Paul is clear on this subject. He is consistent with our sins having been fully forgiven on the Cross.
Eph 4:31, 32 You must put away all bitterness, anger, wrath, quarreling, and slanderous talk—indeed all malice. Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you. [NET]
Col 3:13 …Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others. [NET]
Our forgiving rests on our having been forgiven. The Lord has forgiven you, so forgive others. This reflects the New Covenant reality of our having all sins forgiven at the Cross. These verses look back to that reality
Now contrast this once-for-all-past forgiveness with what Jesus teaches the disciples in Matthew. Jesus, after giving the Jewish Disciples a model prayer, then explains a vital part of the prayer.
Matt: 6:14, 15 “For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins. [NET]
Why does God withhold his forgiveness till we forgive? Isn’t that jarring considering that we are fully forgiven at the Cross? Jesus is teaching something that directly contradicts the concept of forgive as you have been forgiven. The Cross, shed blood, and forgiveness of the sins of the world, all your sins, are not on view. Jesus is making it clear to His Jewish listeners that God’s forgiveness of their sins is dependent on their performance. It depends on their ability to forgive others.
The Lord’s prayer teaches a conditional forgiveness that belongs to the Old Covenant and not the New Covenant. Jesus Is not teaching New Covenant truth, He is teaching Old Covenant truth. If we tried to live a life where we forgive every slight, every wrong, would we succeed? I talked with a woman who had been severely abused by her stepfather over many years. She struggled to understand what forgiveness would even look like for her. Do we even have a true understanding of what it means to forgive? Do we forgive and then find that we have not really forgiven?
God does not keep score and He does not withhold His forgiveness till you perfectly forgive the wrongs against you. I find the Lord’s prayer shocking in the mouths of Christians in the light of the once-for-all forgiveness found under the New Covenant. It does not align with what Paul teaches about our forgiving based on the past forgiveness of all our sins.
The context of the giving of the Lord’s prayer occurs while Jesus is demonstrating to the Jews that their external law keeping missed the mark. True law keeping rested in their heart attitude. They were not keeping and could not keep the law perfectly. Jesus had come to atone for their failure by giving the blood sacrifice the law demanded. The Lord’s prayer presents another standard that they could not keep.
The Lord’s prayer looks to the coming of God’s kingdom, but isn’t that fulfilled in believers? Aren’t we now in God’s kingdom? Haven’t we been delivered from the power of darkness?
Col 1:13,14 He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. [NET]
The disciples prayed for deliverance from evil, the evil one. We have been delivered from the power of death that Satan held over us.
Heb 2:14,15 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.
The disciples prayed to their Father in heaven. Jesus is indeed in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father. God the Father, Son and Sprit are also in us and with us. Christ in you the hope of glory.
The Lord’s prayer looks to a time that will shortly be fulfilled for those who were taught it. It speaks to Jews who are still under the law and who are learning that they cannot keep that law. The prayer is an Old Covenant prayer not a New Covenant prayer. It is a prayer for Jews before the cross, not Christians after the Cross.
I understand the resistance to accepting what I am presenting. Our tradition is stamped on our minds and emotions. We have been given a long list of things to believe in our statements of faith. Our doctrines tell us what to think about God and all that His reality means to us. Every Sunday we hear a sermon that informs us how to view our faith, ourselves and our world. We accept so many of these things without hesitation, without question.
Test what I have said above. Prove or disprove it for yourself. Make what you discover your own. You might find that you no longer pray an Old Covenant prayer.
‘The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism, by Dr. Wilson’: Some Thoughts
The following quote is from Grace theological Press:
Dr. Wilson graduated as a medical doctor from the University of Texas system, followed by an Orthopedic Residency and Hand Fellowship. He then taught as a full-time academic professor at Oregon’s medical school for many years. While maintaining his hand surgery practice, Dr. Wilson decided to pursue theology. He graduated magna cum laude from Faith Lutheran Seminary with a M.Div. degree, then magna cum laude from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary with a Th.M. degree. Dr. Wilson attended The University of Oxford in the United Kingdom where he received his doctorate in theology with the thesis, “Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to ‘Non-free Free Will’: A Comprehensive Methodology.“
….
That is an impressive resume.
Dr. Wilson recently made his findings from his thesis work available in summary form so that it is accessible to a wider audience. The Kindle version is available on Amazon titled “The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism.” The “Methodology” for his thesis consisted of a reading of Augustine’s writings in chronological order along with comparing Augustine to Pauline, Patristic and other early church writings. The goal was to document Augustine’s introduction of Manichean determinism into Christian theology. Dr. Wilson demonstrates Augustine’s support of a free-will theology consistent with the early Church’s teaching. He shows that Augustine for much of his writings argued against determinism and used scripture to attack the Manichean view of scripture. At a point Augustine’s position on infant baptism was challenged by followers of Pelagia and he resorted to his Manichean roots to answer the challenge. Augustine had studied Manicheism for ten years. In defending his position of baptism Augustine adopted the Manichean misinterpretation of scriptures, the very interpretations he had opposed in his earlier writings. The result is that Augustine introduced Manichean determinism into Christianity. This was a major diversion from early church teaching. Luther and Calvin adopted this teaching leading, especially through Calvin, to today’s Reformed theology.
This work will not be easily dismissed. It dispels any argument that today’s
TULIP i.e. Reformed theology is based on Patristic or scriptural teaching.
Clearly todays Calvinism is the product of Manichean/Gnostic philosophy and its
misinterpretation of scriptures. If you are Reformed, or you are leaning in
that direction, I would encourage you to objectively read Dr. Wilson’s
presentation. You owe it to yourself to understand the basis for your belief.
Comments on a Paper Titled: Implications of Determinism by Mecca Chiesa, University of Kent
IMPLICATIONS OF DETERMINISM
From time to time I read academic papers mostly to do with Christian issues. I soon get into the weeds and well over my head, but on occasion I glean something useful. The title of this paper caught my attention. It is written by a proponent of behaviorism. I give you a quote for context:
Since human action takes place in the same physical universe as all other phenomena, behaviorists have no objection to determinism, and, for the behaviorist, determinism does nothing to undermine the richness, individuality, and complexity of the human experience.
Her thesis is that we have a rich and diverse human experience despite the determined nature of our actions. When we act, we take that action based on a long and complex series of causal events. This is naturalism which must reject free will because we are the product of evolution. We are the sum of random natural events.
This chapter attempts to respond to objections to determinism by emphasizing some of its more positive implications. Where other listeners react with fear or despair to an implied loss of control and with terror to an implied loss of self-identity, behaviorists react in more optimistic ways to determinism. While other listeners dread the consequences of not being able to hold people responsible for their behavior, behaviorists are quite able to accommodate determinism and accountability.
When I read the quote above, I no longer thought I was reading an academic paper. Those who reject behaviorism react with fear, despair and terror at the implications of this natural science. They “dread” not being able to hold people accountable for their moral actions. The horror of it all! She is implying that any who reject her science are doing so emotionally rather than rationally therefore her view is correct. This commits a fallacy and does nothing to support her view.
In discussing the tension between determinism and free will, she makes the following statement:
Although theologians account for the soul by asserting that it is God-given, neither compatibilists nor indeterminists are concerned to provide an account of how the autonomous self comes to be. They simply assert its existence, assign causal status to it and thus justify holding persons responsible for their behavior. The autonomous self seems to be exempt from the laws of science that operate in the rest of nature.
Here is a clear denial of the Biblical account of human creation. The soul cannot exist unless it occurs through some natural/explainable process. One cannot make the claim that humankind is in anyway different from animals. Self is the product of our environment, experiences, positive and negative reinforcements. Self does not direct behavior. It is these external influences that direct our actions. We maintain our uniqueness because of the complex nature of the inputs we receive:
…the entity we call the self comes to be that unique entity through interaction with the contexts to which it has been exposed (including other people and the verbal behavior of the culture), through the consequences of its own acts, through positive and aversive conditioning, and through its genetic susceptibility to reinforcing and punishing contingencies.
One of the consequences of determinism/naturalism is despair. The author counters this by saying that we should not confuse fatalism with determinism. She provides the following to support her thesis:
Fatalism also views everything as caused, but it denies that human beings have any role in changing or influencing the course of events. Yet even the most casual of observations refutes fatalism: if my car has a fault and if I call the garage, make an appointment to take the car there, and subsequently take the car, the fault will be repaired (assuming the mechanics also engage in appropriate behavior). If I fail to behave in those ways, my car will not work properly. My actions bring about events in the world and are causally related to subsequent events. Similarly, if the student spends some time studying for an exam, that action will have a different outcome than if the student watches television or plays computer games without opening a textbook. It is true that lots of things will happen regardless of our behavior – the next lunar eclipse for example – but behavior itself produces changes in the environment (that is the definition of the operant or operant class). So the behavior of an individual at any given time does affect subsequent events, including subsequent behavior, and thus the subsequent events are not due to some mysterious force called fate, rather they can be causally traced to an individual’s own actions on a prior occasion.
This is supposed to be an argument against fatalism. Look at the variety of outcomes possible from our behavior. The car is fixed, and the student passes his test. Those are not fatalistic outcomes like an eclipse whose event no human action can prevent. They are not fatalistic because we have an immediate, identifiable cause. Our decision making has immediate and viewable effect. This argument fails when you realize the author ignores the length of the causal chain. I failed the test because of a long line of causal events, much unseen and unconscious, that determined my rejection of doing anything to help me pass the test. My car still doesn’t run not because I chose not to get it fixed, but because a long series of conditioning made my negative behavior unavoidable in this circumstance. Yes, we can clearly see the immediate consequences of certain behaviors, but under determinism these behaviors are the consequence of random processes that have inevitable effect. Their fate is as assured as that of the eclipse.
In a section addressing blame and moral responsibility the author states:
Let us for a moment remove the word moral from the expression moral responsibility and just consider what is meant by responsibility.
She provides a morally neutral situation where a student fails to turn in an assignment.
As a behaviorist, I fully appreciate that my student is not to blame. Given that the behavior (or lack of it) is determined by genetic endowment, learning history, and features of the current context, the student could do nothing other than fail to submit the assignment. Therefore, I do not make any “moral” judgements about the behavior. Nevertheless, my student and I are involved in a complex set of contingencies (including statements delivered orally or in writing about what will follow from the non-submission of assignments) that require some action on my part, that require me to provide consequences for the failure to perform in specified ways.
She argues that there is no blame/judgement of the student, but there are consequences based on transactional agreements.
In situations where a person is to be considered responsible (where the culture is going to provide consequences) legal systems recognize the importance of learning history when they allow for what are called mitigating circumstances to be taken into account.
Notice the assertion that it is appropriate to hold a person responsible for their actions. See the problem? The person is not response-able under her system. The person’s actions are determined by causal events that the person cannot avoid. They cannot be blamed for their actions because the actions are determined, but they can be held responsible. To have the ability to respond requires free will, the ability to choose to do otherwise.
In relation to the kinds of behavior normally considered in the literature of ethics, stealing, harming other people, damaging their property and so on, Young (1991) notes that determinism continues to allow for the control of unacceptable behavior at the same time as it de-emphasizes moral responsibility and blame.
One cannot lay blame or make moral judgements, yet “unacceptable behavior” can be controlled. We are no different than animals. Our actions are determined. We can not choose to do otherwise, yet we can be punished for our actions. The lion hunts and kills its prey. No court of law will charge the lion for murder. Based on naturalism/behaviorism why should I be treated any differently. Would punishing a lion for murder cause any change in his determined actions towards other animals. If I, as a human being, am determined to be a murderer what law, what punishment would change that?
There is another glaring problem. Who gets to decide what is “objectionable behavior?” Without God there are no objective moral values or duties.
Naturalism at heart must rely on random processes to explain the present state of creation including the human condition. In their view we are only animals subject to the whiles of those random processes. No matter how complex the processes, or their results, the effect is the same. Assume all things are determined by natural processes there is then no escaping the conclusion that humans are not in control of their behavior. The result of this world view can be nothing more than despair and fatalism. No argument can surmount the truth that a person whose behavior is determined cannot be held responsible for that behavior morally or otherwise.
I am grateful that I am God breathed. I have a soul and am morally aware. I can make free decisions despite the long list of influences that go into to those decisions. I am free to do otherwise. These truths make God’s redemption necessary and my hope assured.
The Law Remains yet it is Perfected in Christ
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (NIV)
This is one of the most difficult verses in Scripture. It has to do with the ‘jots and tittles.” Those little things that won’t go away. People focus on the ‘jots and tittles” and lose sight of the larger context.
Mike Winger has a YouTube series called “Hebrew Roots” where he provides a Scripture wide survey of the Biblical view of the Law of Moses, the moral law given to the Nation of Israel. He does a comprehensive job of grounding the context for the Law and answers the question; What is the relationship between the life of the Christian and the Old Testament moral law? He is up to three parts for this series and I expect several more will be added. It is a very worthwhile in-depth study. The Law was for a time, a place, and a people.
I will leave the survey details to Mike. What I want to share is my take on the meaning of the word “fulfill.” Looking at the Lexicons you can find a range of meanings for the Greek word translated “fulfil” in this verse. My take is that it has a connotation of something that is fully filled. My bucket is fully filled. If my bucket is fully filled, it is perfectly filled. “Perfect” is one possible translation. If my bucket is fully filled. it is completely full. “Complete” is one concept conveyed by the Greek word. I wonder if the translators chose “fulfill” rather than “perfect” or “complete” because the latter invokes the sense of finality, while the former maintains some ambiguity in relation to time. I can see the choice for ambiguity in that Jesus indicates that he is not going to abolish the law, not one “jot or tittle” of it. But being full and not being abolished, leads to misunderstanding. Many conclude that it means the continuation of the law for everyone, Jew and Christian. This is not so.
Can something not be abolished yet be fulfilled, completed, perfected, at the same time? Can something remain fully in effect and still be complete? Giving answer to that question is the challenge Jesus presents in the Sermon on the Mount. He says chose which covenant you wish to be judged by. Do you remain under the moral law that you cannot keep? If so the demands of the law will not cease, and you will be held accountable for every small detail of that law. Instead, do you choose to accept what I offer, the completion of the law, the perfection of the law through me? If so, by grace you will be free of the law, its demands, and its condemnation. Through me you will have the righteousness of Christ. The choice is between the Old Testament moral law and the New Testament Law of Christ. The moral law requires a work of man, the Law of Christ is accomplished in and through us by the Holy Spirit. The law and all its requirements remain if you choose to follow the moral code. But for those who follow Christ, the demands of the law are perfected in Him. Both “not abolished” and “fulfilled” are true at the same time. The law has not been abolished, and it has been fulfilled. It is a matter of which covenant you adhere to.
The Law of Moses, the moral law, is not for Christians. For Christians the old law is complete in Christ. We no longer are held to the demands of the law. We have within us a new and better law, the law of Christ, the love of God expressed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet there are those Christian believers, like the Pharisees Jesus was speaking to, who cling to the moral law, not knowing the perfect law within them. You cannot mix law with grace. You must choose one or the other.
Choose Grace
Have you ever had that moment, a fleeting instance, when you obey God with astonishingly near perfection? That is a bit of exaggeration, but there are moments in our lives when our obedience to God catches our attention. As you become aware of your work of near Christ like righteousness, your pride sweeps in and your chest swells, and you make your claim before God: “Look what I accomplished!” In an instant, your grand accomplishment is swept away by your sin of pride.
Our effort to obey God is not the only work that catches us this way. Any work of the law will lead to sin. Law excites sin. Law leads to death. Jesus makes certain that we understand the level of perfection the law demands. It is a perfection only he can accomplish. No matter how hard we try to obey, we will always fall short of the obedience Jesus modeled for us.
The law always leads to self-righteousness. The Pharisees were very good at hedging the law in ways that made it doable. They were good at appearing righteous according to the law’s demands. That worked very well until Jesus came and replaced their outward appearance of obedience for an inward purity that could never be produce by their good works. The law demands more, the more we keep it. Jesus makes it clear that an inner change was needed if man was to meet the requirements of the law. That change could not be produced by any human effort, it had to be provided by the righteous one, God himself. It is by the grace and mercy of God himself that we can be free from the curse of the law.
Unfortunately, many Christians do not realize how vital it is to embrace God’s grace. Grace appeals, but the lure of keeping the law remains. Yet, it is only by God’s grace that we can have Christ’s resurrection life in us. From that life flows his righteousness into and through us. Only the work of the Spirit can accomplish what we long to achieve through the law.
When you tell a law abiding Christian that all their sins are forgiven and that they are free from the guilt of breaking the law, you stir up a remarkable response, a denial of Scriptural truth. Grace is a terrible mystery to the law abiding, law keeping Christian. How are we to oppose sin if God has dealt with the guilt of sin? How are we to overcome the old patterns of the flesh that are so susceptible to Satan’s temptations? Under grace aren’t we free to sin to our hearts desire?
Answer that last question and watch the confusion/anger on the face of the law keeper. Say to them that they are indeed free to sin to their hearts desire. Then tell them that their new heart has no desire to sin. If the person isn’t beating you over the head by now, she will at least come back at you with her experience. “Sin constantly pulls at me and I often give in to it.” She is correct and her experience is true for her as it is for all believers. Jesus has dealt with the guilt of sin, but we still live with its consequences. Sin is an integral part of our lives while we remain in our mortal bodies. That is a fact no matter how into God’s grace you might be. At some point we must turn away, repent, from our sin. No law will help us. The struggle is real. The war rages. There are times we overcome and times when we sin boldly. In those moments we learn how powerful the sin pathways embedded in our flesh really are.
If Jesus had not forgiven us of all our sins, every one of them, we would have no hope of salvation, no hope of righteousness. By his grace, God has dealt with our sin problem. God does not ignore our sins, rather he died for our sins. Our sin issue cost him dearly. Our sin is no longer the issue. For the believer, God is focused not on sin, but on our glorification. Glorification will finally come when we shed our mortal bodies and are given our glorified bodies. What a day that will be! We will be free from the sin patterns of our mortal bodies and will be in a body incapable of falling prey to sin’s temptations.
Am I a wretched man? A sinner saved by grace. Am I a new creation In Christ? Filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Paul never addresses Christians as sinners. He addresses them as Saints. God sees the new man we are even while we struggle with remnants of the old creature we once were. Our new nature is indwelt and empowered by God. Christ and the Holy Spirit gives life to our new nature, to the being we have become. God will only dwell in a holy temple.
We live with a dichotomy that will not be fully resolved in our lifetime. The law pulls us toward the old vulnerable patterns of flesh. Grace pulls us toward the new life within us that is obedient to God. A life within that is as righteous as Christ.
God’s grace does not take from us our ability to choose. We have free will. Temptation forces us to make decisions. The struggle against temptation is very real. But we are not alone in that struggle. God’s Spirit within guides and empowers us. Christ is our advocate with the Father when we fail. Our prayers are heard, and God provides a way of escape and when we fail, God forgives. We suffer in this life for our sin and the sin condition that surrounds us. We learn its reality and its devastating effect. In that process we grow in our understanding of the depth and meaning of the gracious forgiveness God has provided.
There is a rest that comes as we learn who we have become in Christ. As we set our minds on the things above and the new creature we have become, the war raging in and around us subsides. We know deep within that we are no longer wretched, but are indeed Saints, holy and righteous, because the Holy and Righteous One dwells in us. Resurrection life changes who we are and how we behave in this fallen world. There is no law that can produce life. I will take God’s grace over law any day. In the meantime, we with all the earth groan for that future day when we will put off the mortal for the immortal, our glorified bodies finally free from sin’s presence in our lives.
Romans 6:1,14 (NET Bible)
What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.
For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection. We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.)
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that since Christ has been raised from the dead, he is never going to die again; death no longer has mastery over him. For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires, and do not present your members to sin as instruments to be used for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments to be used for righteousness. For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.
Speaking of Tongues (2)
A criticism of today’s practice of tongues claims that it is not a reflection of the Apostles’ teaching, in that there is no order and it is not done decently. It is said that this lack of order does not bring glory to God, and does not meet Paul’s criteria for the use of tongues. The critic restricts the use of tongues within a church meeting to speaking with interpretation. He also insists that the gift of tongues is limited to human languages not known to the speaker. This reflects a very narrow view of how “tongues” are manifested in a corporate setting.
Scripture does not provide a manual on speaking in tongues. By the time Paul writes to the Corinthians, speaking in tongues is a common expression of worship. The early church doesn’t need to be told what tongues sound like, or how it occurs, or the range of ways it is manifested. Paul, when he writes to the churches, is not covering every detail of church life. He is addressing specific issues that are causing problems in those churches.
Acts 10:
44) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message. 45) The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46) for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Acts 19:
4) Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 6) and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. 7) (Now there were about twelve men in all.)
Acts gives us a common reaction to the coming of the Holy Spirit into the lives of new Christians. The new believers break out in a simultaneous, and in unison, outpouring of praise by speaking in tongues. The initial response is a heart’s desire to communicate, not with men, but with God. The response is recognizable and affirming of the speaker’s relationship with God, so much so that Peter is convinced that the Gospel extends even to the Gentiles. There is no indication that these tongues’ speakers are speaking in human languages that are unknown to them. There is no report of foreign speakers hearing their own language, nor is there a report of any interpretation. Tongues that are understood without interpretation by foreign language speakers is unique to Acts 2. Yet even there, the simultaneous praise in tongues occurs.
The corporate worship in tongues probably became routine practice in Christian churches. When Paul prayed for new belivers, they spoke in tongues and prophesied, both practices encouraged by Paul at Corinth. Why doesn’t Paul mention corporate worship in tongues more frequently? The reason is that this routine practice of simultaneous tongues speaking is not an issue. He alludes to the practice when he speaks of praying and singing in the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:15).
Problems occur with tongues when a single individual uses the gift during worship. This is in contrast to the simultaneous worship in tongues by all members during the Church meeting. An individual’s use of the gift of tongues should be for the benefit of the entire gathering and not just for the individual, thus it requires the speaker to seek an interpretation. Individual tongues speakers were dominating the church gathering. Paul places a limit to this activity of two or three times and asks that they speak with interpretation for the benefit of all. Throughout 1 Corinthians 12-14, Paul is encouraging individuals to seek spiritual gifts and to use them for the benefit of the entire Body. He is not limiting the gift of tongues to this one expression.
1 Corinthians 14:
1) Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. 2) For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.
In contrasting tongues to prophesy, Paul provides some of the attributes of tongues. Unlike prophesy, tongues a) do not speak to people, b) speaks to God, c) are understood by no man, d) speaks mysteries, and e) are an expression empowered by the Spirit. It is on this basis that Paul begins to correct the abuse of this gift. The ground on which his criticism rests assumes this understanding of tongues. This clear statement is in Paul’s mind as he writes the remainder of 1 Corinthians 14.
With Paul’s description in mind, how can one justify saying that tongues are the speaking of a human language unknown to the speaker? Why would speech, that is understandable to the human mind, need an interpreter? The foreigner would understand his own tongue, even though the speaker would not. The answer is that this is not the purpose of tongues. There is a strong presupposition behind the belief that a human language is being spoken with tongues. It is presupposed that tongues are meant to be a means for communicating to unbelievers. Pentecost is the only time this kind of communication is recorded. The primary expression of tongues in Scripture, during corporate worship consistent with Paul’s description and with the initiating occurrences in Acts, is one of worship, that is the simultaneous expression of praise to God by believers.
Paul affirms that there are real benefits to this worship (even the single tongues speaker “gives thanks well”) and he warns us not to forbid its use.
Speaking of Tongues
It has been said that Christianity without the supernatural is just another religion.
Most Church experience is void of the supernatural. The Holy Spirit is spoken of in passing and the Spirit’s role in our lives, and in the life of the Church, is hardly understood. No one seeks the charismata, the gifts of the Spirit.
There was a point in Billy Graham’s ministry when he experienced the supernatural. “They came to a time of rest from prayer. Billy exclaimed, ‘My heart is so flooded with the Holy Spirit!’ They alternately wept and laughed, and Billy began walking back and forth across the room, saying, ‘I have it! I’m filled. I’m filled. This is the turning point of my life. This will revolutionize my ministry.’ “ Read the full story here.
The Church began at Pentecost with the supernatural as told in Acts 2. Much of what happened was unique to that event. The Holy Spirit coming upon the Apostles as “tongues of fire” is one example. In response to the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles began to worship and speak in tongues. Many interpreters jump to the conclusion that they are speaking in human languages other than their native tongue. Based on the description in Acts 2, and especially in 1 Corinthians 14 where speaking in tongues is described more fully, I conclude that the Apostles are worshiping God using a gift of tongues, speaking as the Spirit gave utterance. This is consistent with other descriptions of receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, the use of a heavenly language.
Notice that some of the crowd understood the tongues and others did not. The Scripture emphasizes that many in the crowd heard the tongues in their own dialect. I don’t know of another place in Scripture that this “hearing” tongues in one’s own dialect occurs. It is unique to this initial coming of the Holy Spirit. There were mockers in the crowd that began to accuse the speakers of being drunk on wine. People open to the coming of the Spirit were given the ability to hear and understand the worshiper’s tongues speaking and those closed to the Spirit only heard gibberish, the sound of drunkards. If the Apostles were speaking in known human languages, both groups would have understood them.
When it came to explaining what was happening, and when it came to proclaiming the Gospel message, Peter stood and preached the first sermon of the new Church. I have never seen any suggestion that Peter presented his sermon in tongues. The Gospel was presented in Peter’s native language.
Later in Acts 10, God used Peter to take the Gospel message to the Gentiles. Acts 10:44-46) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Again, the response to the coming of the Holy Spirit is one of worship. Peter had preached the Gospel in his native language and the response was one of praising God in tongues. The Gentiles were worshiping, thus communicating to God, not preaching or evangelizing to those around them. There is no report of foreigners being present. They were praising God in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Paul expected the supernatural to be a normal part of the life of the Church. He spends chapters 12-14 of 1 Corinthians giving direction on the use of Spiritual Gifts which he encourages all believers to seek.
Here is a selection of the positive things Paul says about tongues taken from 1 Corinthians 14: 2) For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit. 5) I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. 14) If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive. 15) What should I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind. 18) I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 39) So then, brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid anyone from speaking in tongues.
Tongues do not communicate with man. Paul says that no human being understands when one speaks in tongues. Tongues communicate with God. Tongues speak mysteries by the Spirit.
The gifts require the presence and work of God’s Spirit. They give testimony and experience to the supernatural in the life of the Christian church.
Jude 1:20, 21) But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith, by praying in the Holy Spirit, maintain yourselves in the love of God, while anticipating the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that brings eternal life.
We edify ourselves by praying in tongues. We build ourselves up in the faith by praying in tongues. We maintain ourselves in the love of God by praying in tongues. We speak to God by praying in tongues.
Christianity without the supernatural is just another religion. Jesus said in Mark 16:17) And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Tongues are for those who believe in the name of Jesus. He put no time constraint on this promise and neither did Paul. Tongues are needed for today as much are they were needed in the Corinthian church. Without the gifts of the Spirit, without speaking in tongues, healing, prophecy, miracles and any other manifestation the Spirit wishes to produce, we Christians are only practicing a religion.
The Truthful Atheist
Welcome to “Let’s Talk About It.” Our gust today is the well known atheist and author Norman Rottweiler.
Host: It is good of you to grant this interview today. I appreciate your taking the time to talk about yourself and your atheist/naturalist view of the world.
Atheist: I was intrigued by your request. Why would you want to talk to an atheist?
Host: My listeners send me questions from time to time. They ask about how the world works, or why we are here in the first place. You write extensively on these issues and I think my readers will find your comments of interest.
Atheist: OK, that sounds reasonable.
Host: What is the hardest question for you as an naturalist to answer?
Atheist: There are a few hard ones. Well…I guess the hardest one is to face the fact that there is no good or evil in the world. Ask me what is good or what is evil and I have no real answer for you. You see we live in a natural world full of random processes. Those processes have no intention, no direction, no ultimate purpose. We just have to make do with that. Things happen to us that we don’t like, that are harmful or hurtful, but that is about the extent of our ability to discern good or evil. Nature is petty indifferent to our preference or our feelings.
Host: Don’t we have rights? Aren’t there things that are morally wrong?
Atheist: We have opinions about thing. We establish conventions and agree with one another to follow those conventions. We make judgments about possible outcomes from our actions and we try to minimize the harm to ourselves or to society. It is just foolish to run red lights if you value not getting hurt.
Host: Survival of the fittest…
Atheist: It boils down to that doesn’t it. Some reject the implication from Darwinism that there is no basis for objective morality and they try to construct some objective morality based on naturalism. I just find that they fail miserably. Atheists will point to science as a means for establishing what is good or evil. In all honesty, science just can’t test something that is immaterial. If objective moral values exist, they must be outside the material universe. You can’t smell them or touch them, so how can you test them. No, they can’t even exist. Only material things exist.
Host: But, numbers exist and logic exists. They are real things, but they are not material? We use logic and numbers to tell us about the world around us don’t we.
Atheist: On materialism, they must be an illusion, a trick of the brain. It is just the way our brain works, The way the neurons fire.
Host: If you go too far down that road, you will end up believing that I don’t exist, or that your own existence is an illusion.
Atheist: That is true.
Host: And that doesn’t bother you?
Atheist: It is just the way it is. I have to accept the nature of things.
Host: But doesn’t the universe tell us that there is more to it than just material objects?
Atheist: Are you talking about design?
Host: Design, and intentionality…I think there is clear evidence for both, don’t you.
Atheist: I did say there are hard questions I can’t answer easily. Those are two of them. I am aware of the fine tuning of the universe. It is well established that if the initial conditions of the universe were not finely turned we would not be here. Some atheists argue that there are many universes and that we are one of the few that survived because all the parameters were finely tuned for life.
Host: There are real problems with the multi-universe argument. What is your view?
Atheist: You are correct, the multi-universe theory has serious flaws. I don’t support that argument.
Report: Do you see intentionality in nature?
Atheist: Now you are talking about an attribute that can only belong to a mind. I reject that there is a god, so how can there be intention to any random processes.
Host: If the universe was finely tuned for life, doesn’t that show intention?
Atheist: Certainly, but it can’t in reality because that would require a creator mind. I reject such a mind.
Host: Your objection is a priori. You fix a position before you begin an argument and thus bias your argument.
Atheist: I think the condition is self evident. To think otherwise is just to fantastic and the consequences frightening to me.
Host: That is interesting. Let me move on then. Darwinism is under attack by the newest scientific evidence for intentionality combined with the need for complex DNA molecules required for life at the earliest stages of their appearance. Is Darwinism on a precipice?
Atheist: True, it seems that you mess with the DNA, or with developing cells and either the animal mutates into something not very useful or it dies. You cannot manipulate the process and produce a new species. A pig is a pig from the time the embryo is formed and nothing we do seems able to change that ping into a chicken. You are right, there is an intention that embryos of a certain species will always become that species. You are also correct that a finely tuned universe that produces life seems intentionally designed that way.
Host: How do you deal with that in view of your a priori position that denies the existence of a god, or a mind?
Atheist: Darwinism will have to be rethought. Perhaps it is past its prime. I just think that any discussion of intention is illusory. It can’t be real.
Host: You have used the word “illusion” a number of times. Atheist accuse theists of relying on the “god of the gaps” to fill in their lack of knowledge. Isn’t your using “illusion” a way to fill the gaps of your ignorance. Isn’t it just a copout? You are avoiding the evidence for something beyond a material world.
Atheist: Look, I am an atheist. I reject a god or a mind, or a soul. They are unreal. They are not material. They are the product of the random molecular activity in our brains. I am not filling gaps by referring to illusion. I am just pointing out that there are limits to what these processes can produce, thus limits to our ability to know what is real.
Host: So you live in an illusion.
Atheist: My brain is the functioning of molecules and chemicals that behave randomly. My brain is the result of a long process of evolution that is itself a random process. What I think, feel, see, taste all are the product of those random processes. Of course it is all an illusion. That is all that random processes can ever produce.
Host: But you admit to evidence that goes beyond the material.
Atheist: To deal with that I would have to admit to a mind, to a god, to a designer. I refuse to believe in a god or mind like that.
Host: What would be the harm? I would think that would open up your world to something real, to something that is not an illusion.
Atheist: If a god existed, I would have to answer to such a god. He would establish what was good, moral or real. I don’t want to live under that authority.
Host: Despite the evidence that you admit you cannot explain.
Atheist: You don’t get it. That evidence is just as much an illusion as god is an illusion.
Host: Why?
Atheist: God does not exist.
Host: On what basis do you say he does not exist?
Atheist: On the basis that I say so. It is my view shaped by my understanding of the material world.
Host: Which you admit is an illusion.
Atheist: Correct.
Host: You place a great deal of faith on the idea that god does not exist. I wish we could explore that more but we are out of time and must end our discussion. Again I appreciate your taking the time.
Atheist: So we are done. I hope your listeners will be informed and that they will join me in rejecting the myth that god exists.
Host: I think your very frank answers might have just the opposite effect. We really must end now.
Comment: The above is total fiction. Our Truthful Atheist does not exist. But it is true that Atheism at heart is simply a rejection of God. It is no more sophisticated than that. Once a person goes down that road they do indeed live in an illusion. The underpinning of logic, and reason are no longer present. Their beloved science no longer has a foundation. Their ability to make sense of evil, or to even know what that evil exists disappears. The Atheist cannot tell us why we are here, nor what we are here for. Surprisingly, Atheist’s cannot provide reasonable, persuasive arguments for their assertion that God does not exist. Atheism starts and ends with a visceral attack on God himself. It is couched often in lofty terms, but pry a little and soon the true nature of the atheist’s stand is revealed.
What is real and true is grounded in God. Apart from Him we have no access to what is real. Everything becomes an illusion.
The Grey Network 